Who started both World Wars?

[stilicho]

I doubt that the Europeans were counting the minutes from the moment they started butchering each other until the moment the Americans joined. You see, Europe in those days was very euro-centric. Other continents were not really in the picture, other than as a colony. That changed on the day that Britain decided to team up with the US and the SU in order to let them take over the place just to see a country destroyed that they deemed too strong. Difficult people, these British.

Nobody says that. The Great War started in 1914. It turned into a world war in 1917.

The relationship of the UK to the other non-European powers did not begin with a "team up with the US and the SU". The Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1894 began a long and fruitful association between a European and a distinctly Asian power as equals. To say that the UK or any other European power had no interests outside their continent as equal parties before 1917 is simply nonsense.

To your second point: It appears you are employing sophistry to calculate the beginning of conflicts. That point is always the one in which a foreign power joins Europeans in the fighting. Conveniently, then you can avoid certain obvious conclusions if you move back the start dates to APR 1917 and DEC 1941. No historian on earth would support your reasoning. Historians generally accept that the outbreak of fighting in AUG 1914 and SEP 1939 marks the beginning of each conflict and that the origins go back years or even decades.

 

[dudalb]

That disdain came late in my life. Cause: the internet + rapidly changing demography in the Netherlands.

During my younger years I was always in conflict with my father. For me America was Great, my father in contrast had sympathies for the Russians.
Until 2000 I was a liberal yuppie, ever more leaning to the right as my income increased. In 1995 I went a whole week to Normandy to visit the beaches that were stormed 51 years earlier. Additionally I hopped to Dover to visit the war time tunnels. Churchill was my hero then, have several biographies of him, like the one from Sebastian Haffner. Jews were great as well, brave little people living from hardship to hardship, always persecuted, blablabla. Furthermore I have worked everywhere in Europe, including Germany, France and the UK. Worked with many Americans as well. Dutch-Anglo chemistry is easy and I always got along fine Americans and British. What was special about me was that I had early sympathies for Germany as well. Had to do with a relationship with a German woman in my early adult years. Through her I started to interest myself for Germany, no revisionist ideas in sight though. Everything changed around 2000: I returned to Holland after years of working in Germany, the rise of the Pim Fortuyn phenomenon and 9/11. I was shocked to see Amsterdam (had not been there for 15 years). It had become a muslim city, the situation in Germany was/is far less grave. It was a development I had completely missed. I started to think about the origins of multiculturalism, the cause of the destruction of my nation. A breakthrough was the reading of the Kevin MacDonald trilogy. I matched those books with the behaviour of politicians in The Netherlands. My God, how often did I not do the google entry <firstname lastname Jew/Jood>, must have been thousands of times. And a pattern began to emerge. To be honest, the 9/11 attacks had a very pleasant side effect that the tabu on discussing mass scale immigration from muslim territory had slowly vanished, also thanks to the martyrship of Pim Fortuyn. I still believed the official 9/11 story though. Then came the murder of Theo van Gogh, a few blocks from where I currently live. I had to restrain myself to not go onto the streets and start throwing molotov cocktails through windows of muslim showkeepers (Next time I will if something will happen to Wilders, university degree or no university degree).

With the books of Kevin MacDonald the internal barrier against questioning the Jews slowly disappeared, aided by daily visits of antiwar.com/Justin Raimondo. The insight that the Jews were behind communism arose, the US Zionist power structure became apparent and finally that tabu of the tabus, the holocaust came crumbling down. I discovered Irving, the IHR, youtube videos, etc. I started to make a vast ordered collection of web pages, pdf's, video's. Then after 2005 the insight rose that 9/11 had been a false flag operation carried out by the Mossad.

To answer your question: my disdain for the Anglo's is a consequence of my insight that they are totally subjugated by the Jews. In contrast the Germans were the only ones who (initially) were strong enough to stand up against the Jews. But it were the Anglos who together with the Soviets were instrumental in bringing the Germans down and as a consequence European civilization all to the benefit of the Jews. And once you know that the H-word is a fabrication, war propaganda, my disdain for the Anglos knows no boundaries. In my eyes the Germans represent the best of the white race, the Anglos the worst.

Figures, does it not?

At last we have 9/11 Investigator's version of Mein Kampf.

The only response I have is this quote from "Billy Madison::

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent rants were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

 

[stilicho]

For good reason. Before 1940 the French run a world empire. When Soviets and Americans were finished with Europe, the French found themselves back as, well, 'part of the West'.

Not so sexy.

Can we stay on topic? Who started both World Wars? And why do you move the dates back to APR 1917 and DEC 1941 unlike any historian on the face of the earth? Why do you assert nonsense as you did when you claimed that European nations did not treat any nation outside Europe as equals before the outbreak of the Great War?

 

[dudalb]

Sorry I am not disagreeing with you - I am well aware of the quality of German troop avaliable in that offensive. The Afrika Korp did bost a number of elite formations such as the Herman Goering Division and the 5th Panzer army who we also present in the Ardennes in a reorganised form

And i certainly did not mean any disrespect of the "Desert Rats" of the 8th Army.

 

[stilicho]

At last we have 9/11 Investigator's version of Mein Kampf.

The only response I have is this quote from "Billy Madison::

Do we really have to read further than this?

I discovered...youtube videos

 

[9/11-investigator]

The relationship of the UK to the other non-European powers did not begin with a "team up with the US and the SU". The Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1894 began a long and fruitful association between a European and a distinctly Asian power as equals. To say that the UK or any other European power had no interests outside their continent as equal parties before 1917 is simply nonsense.

Japan was the exception. Besides, Buchanan says about this treaty:

Britain's capitulation, at Churchill's urging, to American pressure to sever the Anglo-Japanese alliance, insulting and isolating Japan, pushing her onto the path of militarism an conquest.

Puts your phantasizing about this 'long and fruitful relationship' in a somewhat dim light.

To your second point: It appears you are employing sophistry to calculate the beginning of conflicts. That point is always the one in which a foreign power joins Europeans in the fighting. Conveniently, then you can avoid certain obvious conclusions if you move back the start dates to APR 1917 and DEC 1941. No historian on earth would support your reasoning. Historians generally accept that the outbreak of fighting in AUG 1914 and SEP 1939 marks the beginning of each conflict and that the origins go back years or even decades.

Talking about sophistry... do you seriously want to defend the idea that when the Germans crossed the border (into the lands that was theirs before 1917) they seriously wanted to start a world war? No historian on earth would support your reasoning. They had an agreement with Russia (your future ally, remember) to divide Poland between them and restore the old pre-WW1 situation. That was it. Britain, however, that itself had gobbled up 25% of the planets territory on a 'entering-without-knocking basis', did not like that and declared war on Germany and not the USSR, who had committed exactly the same deed. Later the UK even teamed up with the USSR, making a mockery of the idea that Britain was ever motivated to save poor little Poland.

 

[dafydd]

Japan was the exception. Besides, Buchanan says about this treaty:



Puts your phantasizing about this 'long and fruitful relationship' in a somewhat dim light.



Talking about sophistry... do you seriously want to defend the idea that when the Germans crossed the border (into the lands that was theirs before 1917) they seriously wanted to start a world war? No historian on earth would support your reasoning. The had an agreement with Russia (your future ally, remember) to divide Poland between them and restore the old pre-Versailles situation. That was it. Britain, however, that itself had gobbled up 25% of the planets territory on a entering-without-knocking basis, did not like that and declared war on Germany.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/German_colonial_empire

 

[9/11-investigator]

At last we have 9/11 Investigator's version of Mein Kampf.

You guys keep the compliments coming, I must say! I am blushing!
We all know how influential Dolfie's blog was.

Let's see that future blogs have a more happy ending.

And judging the current geostrategic, economic and financial situation of the Enemy of European Civilization, this endeavour should be an inkoppertje, to stay in football terms.

 

[dudalb]

Do we really have to read further than this?

I discovered...youtube videos

Good Point.
Any lunatic can put up a youtube video..and almost every lunatic does.

 

[Belz...]

They produce excellent perfumes...

You said Germans were the best and English the worst. Where do French stand ?

 

[9/11-investigator]

You said Germans were the best and English the worst. Where do French stand ?

I am starting to suspect that you are French, fishing for compliments. Well then...

You are asking me to come up with 100m Olympics sort of rankings, that's difficult. When it comes to the desire to preserve their own identity the Germans no doubt are #1, the French somewhere between the Germans and the British.

I admire the French for their style of politics. Haven't seen a more impressive performance by any politician than that of Jacques Chirac when interviewed by the BBC on the occasion of the 100 year commemoration of the Entente Cordiale. He is a crook, but an impressive crook. Have been looking a long time for this video in vain. Also Mitterrand, Giscard d'Estaing, Pompidou and of course de Gaulle have this larger-than-life quality. This Jewish gnome Sarkozy obviously totally lacks this sense of grandeur.

British politicians are totally unimpressive. John Mayor, Thatcher, Blair, Brown... hopeless.

Germans come close: admired Schmidt, Kohl, Strauss, Adenauer but they do not have this French sophistication.

Satisfied?

 

[stilicho]

Japan was the exception. Besides, Buchanan says about this treaty:

Japan and the US were exceptions to your rule and pretty substantial ones at that. Britain had few objections whatsoever with the Japanese taking out the cream of the Russian fleet in a single battle.

Puts your phantasizing about this 'long and fruitful relationship' in a somewhat dim light.

You have me confused with another poster. The UK viewed all maritime powers as potential rivals in the late 19th century and developed their military in response to that perceived rivalry. This includes the US and Japan along with France, Germany and Russia. They were even determined to maintain capital ship superiority in the Mediterranean Sea.

Talking about sophistry... do you seriously want to defend the idea that when the Germans crossed the border (into the lands that was theirs before 1917) they seriously wanted to start a world war? No historian on earth would support your reasoning. They had an agreement with Russia (your future ally, remember) to divide Poland between them and restore the old pre-WW1 situation. That was it. Britain, however, that itself had gobbled up 25% of the planets territory on a 'entering-without-knocking basis', did not like that and declared war on Germany and not the USSR, who had committed exactly the same deed. Later the UK even teamed up with the USSR, making a mockery of the idea that Britain was ever motivated to save poor little Poland.

Nobody starts a war with the intentions of it becoming a global conflict and leading to the annihilation of millions of young lives. I would include the Kaiser and Hitler in that category.

You are now veering backwards and forwards between WWI and WWII as though they were the same thing. Are you complaining about the hypocrisy of the UK in supporting (or at least not intervening with) Hitler and Mussolini in Spain, the Rhineland, Austria, and Czechoslovakia while changing their minds in Poland? I agree with you. It would have been better for them to stay consistent and avoid entanglements at all costs, even if that meant a Festung Europa under German influence for years to come. Before the Great War, though, Britain had at least a slender obligation to live up to the treaty it sponsored in 1839.

So, what we're left with is:

Germany invaded Belgium in AUG 1914 and Britain invoked its obligation under the terms of the 1839 treaty. Germany started WWI.

Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland in SEP 1939. Britain interceded with a declaration of war in spite of ignoring previous obligations in at least five different jurisdictions. Germany and the Soviet Union started WWII.

Any objections?

 

[9/11-investigator]

Japan and the US were exceptions to your rule and pretty substantial ones at that.

I view the pre-1965 US as part of the European civilization and hence part of this euro-centric view. In 1965 the Jewish mob around Meyer Lansky killed JFK, bringing the Jew-ish Lyndon Baines Johnson into power without election, who immediatly signed the Immigration and Nationality Act as Jewish interest groups had pushed for for almost a century, changing the face of the US for ever. Today every second child born in the US is of non-European origin, and by the end of this century only 10% of the population will be Europeans, making the US a post-European entity. Good riddance to you. That's why I want to kiss you guys geostrategically speaking goodby. But that's the topic for a different thread.

Nobody starts a war with the intentions of it becoming a global conflict and leading to the annihilation of millions of young lives. I would include the Kaiser and Hitler in that category.

I am glad we agree. I must inform you that you are obliged, according to JREF custom, to have an aceton shower as a result of this agreement with a 'Nazi'. Hygene matter. For this reason I advise you to not to agree too often with me in your own interest.

You are now veering backwards and forwards between WWI and WWII as though they were the same thing. Are you complaining about the hypocrisy of the UK in supporting (or at least not intervening with) Hitler and Mussolini in Spain, the Rhineland, Austria, and Czechoslovakia while changing their minds in Poland? I agree with you. It would have been better for them to stay consistent and avoid entanglements at all costs, even if that meant a Festung Europa under German influence for years to come. Before the Great War, though, Britain had at least a slender obligation to live up to the treaty it sponsored in 1839.

The Germans never aspired for a Festung Europa. It was forced upon them when Churchill started to prepare the invasion of Norway with the intent of cutting Swedish supply lines. Sweden was never occupied by Germany, neither large parts of France, let alone Spain, Switserland. Hitler had made it clear as early as the twenties that he wanted to expand eastwards (just like the British had expanded southwards). There was more land than he could ever occupy. The flight of Hess to Scotland on the eve of the Russia safari was intended to rollback this unwanted westward expansion.

So, what we're left with is:

Germany invaded Belgium in AUG 1914 and Britain invoked its obligation under the terms of the 1839 treaty. Germany started WWI.

Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland in SEP 1939. Britain interceded with a declaration of war in spite of ignoring previous obligations in at least five different jurisdictions. Germany and the Soviet Union started WWII.

Any objections?

Read up this thread from the start, I am not going to repeat everything. Summary:

The shooting of the archduke induced a chain reaction of all sorts of mobilisations of parties involved. Germany was a satiated power and had no designs on anybodies territory. France wanted Elzas/Lotharingen back, Britain wanted to curtail German power (or rather destroy it, Britain in her heart never accepted the existence of a united Germany in the first place). Russia was an expansive power. German strategy, who never sought war and was stuck in the middle, had an agressive defensive strategy (Schlieffenplan). The end effect was that Russia, France and Britain had agressive intentions but the Germans had an agressive forward defense against these intentions. The majority of the more thoughtfull members of this thread including me are inclined to conclude that it is difficult to point to an agressor in this situation.

But Europe is not the world. The Schlieffenplan failed because Germany was unaware of a secret agreement between France and Britain that Britain would come to France's aid in case of a German assault. A battle field stalemate resulted. From then on the British tried to involve the US into the war to break this stalemate. In the end they succeeded turning an essentially European war into a world war.

In agreement with Buchanan I say that Britain started WW1.

WW2 same story.

 

[stilicho]

I view the pre-1965 US as part of the European civilization and hence part of this euro-centric view.

Why? You'd have to include Japan as a part of European civilisation using the same criteria when clearly they are not so.

I am glad we agree. I must inform you that you are obliged, according to JREF custom, to have an aceton shower as a result of this agreement with a 'Nazi'. Hygene matter.

The Kaiser and Hitler behaved no differently than a number of other European politicians of the post-Napoleonic age.

The Germans never aspired for a Festung Europa. It was forced upon them when Churchill started to prepare the invasion of Norway with the intent of cutting Swedish supply lines. Sweden was never occupied by Germany, neither large parts of France, let alone Spain, Switserland. Hitler had made it clear that he wanted to expand eastwards. There was more land than he could ever occupy. The flight of Hess to Scotland on the eve of the Russia safari was intended to rollback this unwanted westward expansion.

OK. So this is solely your vision of what happened before WWII and not the Great War. Either way, an "expand eastward" policy means war (or negotiation as in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia with the assistance of the British). So Germany, in your own words, had it in mind to go to war in pursuit of this policy but didn't intend it to get out of hand.

Too bad for Hitler, I guess.

Germany was a satiated power and had no designs on anybodies territory. France wanted Elzas/Lotharingen back, Britain wanted to curtail German power. Russia was an expansive power. German strategy, who never sought war and was stuck in the middle, had an agressive defensive strategy (Schlieffenplan). The end effect was that Russia, France and Britain had agressive intentions but the Germans had an agressive forward defense against these intentions. The majority of the more thoughtfull members of this thread including me are inclined to conclude that it is difficult to point to an agressor in this situation.

Bethman-Hollweg almost surely knew that invoking an "agressive [sic] forward defence" meant war with both Britain and France. I won't repeat the credible work of dozens of historians either. I see no need for us to repeat what others have said in support of his understanding.

The facts are that the Austrians blundered about for weeks trying to mobilise against a much weaker Balkan power, much as the large European powers had dithered during the two Balkan wars just beforehand.

Why do you figure Germany violated Belgian neutrality when the "real" war was far to the southeast? It was that specific event that transformed what should have been the Third Balkan War into something very different.

From then on the British tried to involve the US into the war to break this stalemate. In the end they succeeded turning an essentially European war into a world war.

In agreement with Buchanan I say that Britain started WW1.

We're back to the sophistry then. Britain wanted American help (probably to prevent the continual risk of wholesale French mutiny) in a war they felt involved the US anyhow. To therefore push the responsibility for starting it upon their leaders is fruitless and nowhere supported by credible historians or any of the primary sources.

I suppose that's why this thread is located in Conspiracy Theories because none of the evidence supports what you're saying.

 

[dudalb]

Just for the Record, Pat Buchanan is Full of crap, and (please note I am of Irish descent) has a traditional Irish American loathing and dislike for Great Britain. I can certainly understand why (The British record in Ireland is pretty crappy) but it can lead to irrational hatred and a "anybody who is opposed to the UK is a Good Guy" mentality.
How Buchanan can think that Britian started World War One, when by the time the UK did enter Germany was at war with Russia and Austria and France, I just do not get.
Germany certainly played a major role in starting WW1 with it's blind support of Austria..the infamous "Blank Check", something which, BTW, would have made Bismarck sick. He was careful not to tie Germany to Austiria Hungary, because he saw that Austria's constant problems in the Balkans would come to no good. His most famous comment on that came after he was retired,when asked by a reporter what would be the cause of the next major war in Europe, he said "Some Damned Foolish Thing In the Balkans".

 

[9/11-investigator]

How Buchanan can think that Britian started World War One, when by the time the UK did enter Germany was at war with Russia and Austria and France, I just do not get.

The Napoleonic wars involved exactly the same parties: France, Britain, Russia, Austria,etc. Nobody ever calls the Napoleonic wars world wars.

These wars become world wars if you invite extra-European powers to the war.

It's not that difficult.

 

[dudalb]

What is really funny is that our Investigator sees himself as a heroic defender or European Civilization, but 98% of the people in Europe would consider him to be hopelessly bigoted, disgusting, and batcrap crazy crackpot.

 

[Mirrorglass]

What is really funny is that our Investigator sees himself as a heroic defender or European Civilization, but 98% of the people in Europe would consider him to be hopelessly bigoted, disgusting, and batcrap crazy crackpot.

I'd honestly like to think the percentage is higher than that. I mean, if even two percent of Europe don't think that, then that pretty much means we've got several million nazis still at large.

 

[9/11-investigator]

What is really funny is that our Investigator sees himself as a heroic defender or European Civilization, but 98% of the people in Europe would consider him to be hopelessly bigoted, disgusting, and batcrap crazy crackpot.

dudalb, who probably would like to plan Soviet style the Chinese rice production from some shabby American bureaucracy, has no idea what he is talking about. From all opinion research it becomes clear that in all western lands a large majority resents mass immigration. It is these neo-marxists like dudalb who are generally despised.

 

[9/11-investigator]

I'd honestly like to think the percentage is higher than that. I mean, if even two percent of Europe don't think that, then that pretty much means we've got several million nazis still at large.

"honestly like to think" is good.

I must remind you that Le Pen was the opponent of Chirac in the final leg of the presidential elections.

Start the engines, Anglosphere!